Arthur Bryant is chairman of Public Justice.

He calls Public Justice America’s public interest law firm.

And over its more than 30 years in existence, Public Justice has built a remarkable record of fighting for access to the courts, using litigation to make a difference and public education.

Bryant has been at the forefront of the battle between workers and consumers on one side and big corporations on the other.

But big corporations are winning. Class actions are being prohibited. People are being denied their day in court and instead being forced into private arbitration.

Why?

“It’s a difference in wealth and power,” Bryant told Corporate Crime Reporter in an interview last week. “There is an enormous amount of concentrated money and power in the hands of corporations, much more so than in the hands of the consumer rights, civil rights and workers’ rights advocates they are fighting in the political arena. And most people aren’t even participating. So, if you are going to look at it as a football game, I would say that’s the reason.”

“But fundamentally, it is in no American’s interest to have a system where people cannot use the courts to get justice. What is extraordinary about America, what makes America so special, is that this is the one country in the world where even the poorest most powerless person can hold the richest, most powerful person or corporation accountable. I’m not saying it happens every day. I’m not saying it’s easy. But it’s possible. What makes this country a shining beacon for justice is that it’s possible. If you have a system where companies or individuals can start stealing from you, or discriminating against you, or cheating you, or injuring you, and never be held accountable, because access to the courts has been denied, that’s not a country where any of us would want to live — I don’t care if you are corporate executives or owners or a worker or consumer. You would be turning the country – and the marketplace – over to the least scrupulous, most unethical, instead of ensuring that our system works as it’s supposed to, so people and companies do the right thing.”

A few years back, the group changed its name from Trial Lawyers for Public Justice to Public Justice.

Everyone assumes it’s because trial lawyers have such a bad public reputation.

“Not at all,” Bryant says. “We were and are proud to be trial lawyers. But we discovered that the name Trial Lawyers for Public Justice was creating a misperception of who we were and what we did. And we realized that we had surpassed our original vision and wanted to pursue an expanded, even more inspiring one.”

“Most people don’t know what trial lawyers do. But among the plaintiffs bar in particular, we learned our name was perceived to mean personal injury lawyers for public justice. Our membership, however, isn’t limited to personal injury lawyers and our work isn’t limited to personal injury work.”

“Public Justice is unique in the public interest community in the breadth of work that it does. We use litigation to make a difference in consumer rights, civil rights, workers rights, civil liberties, environmental protection, access to the courts, and corporate and government accountability. We fight for the poor and the powerless.”

“There are individual groups that do many of these things, but we are the only national public interest law firm that does them all. Our name was creating an inaccurate perception that we were a personal injury law firm when we weren’t.”

“Moreover, our original vision was to build the trial lawyers’ public interest law firm, but we had fulfilled that mission and discovered that, more than anyone, we had started to achieve an expanded, even more inspiring vision of building America’s public interest law firm. Over 25 years, we had engaged in a broader range of cutting-edge, high-impact public interest litigation than any public interest organization in the country. So we changed our name to correct the misimpression that we only did personal injury litigation and pursue our new broader vision.”

Years ago, Public Justice launched an effort to stop abusive class actions.

“Not only were abusive class action settlements unjust, but we became convinced that they were advancing the effort by corporations to wipe out class actions so they could essentially steal the money and keep it. Which is exactly where we are now in more and more circumstances.”

Public Justice has class action trial lawyers donating to Public Justice. Did you ever face a situation where your own members engage in abusive class actions and you challenge those class actions?

“Yes,” Bryant says. “Everyone involved in class action litigation on every side of the issue understands our integrity, who we are and what we stand for. They know we are dedicated to preserving access to the courts for everyone, which includes both ensuring that class actions continue and that they are not abused. We have, in fact, challenged class action settlements that were entered into by our own board members. And we have overturned class action settlements that were entered into by some of our most generous supporters.”

That must have led to some icy board meetings.

“We did have some difficult moments,” Bryant says. “But even those who were upset understood that we were only doing it because we knew it was the right thing to do. As time progressed and it became clear how critical our efforts were to make sure class actions were pursued appropriately, that became less of a problem. So, yes, on occasion, it has been an issue, but not a huge one.”

“To be clear, abuses are something that need to be prevented. But the corporate efforts to immunize themselves from class actions have accelerated in recent years. In two recent U.S. Supreme Court cases — AT&T v. Concepcion and American Express v. Italian Colors — five members of the Supreme Court essentially ruled that corporations can ban class actions by consumers, workers, and small businesses. They have told these corporations — you can steal money from consumers, workers, and small businesses, you can discriminate against them, and you can stop them from bringing class actions against you.”

(For the complete Interview with Arthur Bryant, 28 Corporate Crime Reporter 24(12), print edition only.)